BOMB PLOT TO HIT LONDON NIGHTCLUBS

[joe-90]

Sorry, Richard - but the posts that were removed were not abusive.

I know it infuriates people but I just don't 'do' abusive posts. Never have, never will.



joe

 

[Softus]

...I just don't 'do' abusive posts. Never have, never will.

Hm. I wonder what led to this then:

Joe-90 if you wish to debate a subject then do so and within the rules. This does include descending to personal insults to other memebers. Further similar posts will be deleted.

and this:

Your post was deleted because the way it was worded was offensive and deliberately so in order to provoke an argumentative reply. You seem incapable of taking part in a discussion in a way that doesn't insult or wind people up, despite several warnings over the past weeks. You seem intent on spoiling subjects which are being debated by posting in the manner you do. It will not be tolerated, so i suggest you take on board the comments and change the way you post. The alternative is that posts which in our view are provocative or fall outside of the rules will simply be deleted. I hope that explains the stance we are taking and it wont be explained any further or again

 

[joe-90]

It matters not what the moderator says.

If I've broken the rules then ban me from the site.

The moderator is reading what the moderator wants to read - not what I've written.

Gedditt?



joe

 

[Softus]

Opinions, but no facts.

I disagree.

Geddit?

 

[joe-90]

Opinions, but no facts.

I disagree.

Geddit?

Maybe you'd like to show me one of my 'vile' posts? (he won't).

Maybe ANYONE would like to show me my vile posts (they won't).

I don't do abusive posts.

Ban me from the forum if ever I do.

Now take a look around the forum and see how many genuine vile posts there are. (he will but he won't admit it).


joe

 

[Softus]

Maybe you'd like to show me one of my 'vile' posts? (he won't).

Maybe I would; maybe I wouldn't. You'll never quite know, and you'll always wonder. (He will).

Maybe ANYONE would like to show me my vile posts (they won't).

Shout louder - "they" might hear you. (He won't).

I don't do abusive posts. (He does).

Easy to say once the abuse has been deleted.

Ban me from the forum if ever I do.

And remove an object of general ridicule? That would be a shame.

Now take a look around the forum and see how many genuine vile posts there are. (he will but he won't admit it).

Say pretty please, and I might. (He won't).

 

[joe-90]

The thing is Softus, that my so called 'vile posts' that are deleted by the moderator are seen by other forum members before deletion. Everyone can see that posts full of insults and swear words from other members are tollerated yet my posts that contain neither are not.

The moderator is biased towards the 'hand-wringers'. That is obvious to anyone reading this forum.

The moderator can easily put my posts back on the forum to prove their 'abuse' as a copy is of all posts is held for seven years for legal reasons.

But they won't.

This post contains no abuse - but watch it disappear.


joe

 

[Softus]

Everyone can see that posts full of insults and swear words from other members are tollerated yet my posts that contain neither are not.

Untrue. I've seen plenty of posts from other members, Slogger to name but one, that have later been deleted.

The moderator is biased towards the 'hand-wringers'.

Untrue. You've previously labelled b-a-s as a "hand-wringer" (sic.), and yet he has complained many times about some of his posts that have been deleted...

That is obvious to anyone reading this forum.

...therefore not obvious.

The moderator can easily put my posts back on the forum to prove their 'abuse'

I think you mean "they're", but the moderators (a) have nothing to "prove", and (b) would be mad to reinstate, and thereby make public, the content of posts that have been deleted on the basis that they were unacceptable to the viewing public.

...as a copy is of all posts is held for seven years for legal reasons.

Please refer to the specific statute, or documented case ruling, that supports your assertion. (He won't).

This post contains no abuse - but watch it disappear.

It's still there. (It is).

 

[joe-90]

But the posts that are deleted contain no swearing on libellous content.

Most of this thread will disappear once the moderator wakes up - and that will prove to you that what I say is true.

The usual reason that my posts are deleted is pointing out that BAS is biased towards asylum seekers as he is the son of an asylum seeker. For some weird reason known only to the mod, that is seen as an insult to BAS even though it was BAS that gave the information in this very forum!

May I thank you , Softus for either:

A) Proving my point that the mod is biased (and this post will disappear even though it contains no abuse)

B) Allowing this post to stand (and give my views) in a way that prevents the mod from deleting it as it would prove my case.


I'm in a 'win-win' situatiation and it is all down to you, Softus.



Thanx mate.


joe

 

[Slogger]

ah the penny drops ? i was wondering why BAS stood up for them

now i know must be his cousins

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The moderator is biased towards the 'hand-wringers'.

That is an abusive term.

I am confident in saying that, because I know that you consider it abusive, or an expression of contempt.

When you are called a racist, you complain, even though the word is not a swear word, or an obscenity etc.

You seem to have chosen a very narrow and self-serving definition of abuse, but since (yet again) you have underestimated the intelligence of your readers, it isn't going to work.

Many of your posts are indeed, insulting, abusive and offensive.

 

[Softus]

But the posts that are deleted contain no swearing on libellous content.

I didn't say, or imply, that they did. I said that they were abusive, and I said it because they were abusive. (They were).

Most of this thread will disappear once the moderator wakes up - and that will prove to you that what I say is true.

In which case, preservation of the thread must surely prove that what you say is untrue.

The usual reason that my posts are deleted is pointing out that BAS is biased towards asylum seekers as he is the son of an asylum seeker.

1. What are the other reasons then - the non-usual ones?
2. I am given to believe b-a-s, rather than you, and he says that he isn't the son of an asylum seeker.

For some weird reason known only to the mod, that is seen as an insult to BAS even though it was BAS that gave the information in this very forum!

How weird that must be for you - to find that other people's opinions carry more weight than yours.

May I thank you , Softus for either:

A) Proving my point that the mod is biased (and this post will disappear even though it contains no abuse)

And if it doesn't disappear, then you will be proved wrong. (He will).

B) Allowing this post to stand (and give my views) in a way that prevents the mod from deleting it as it would prove my case.
.
.
I'm in a 'win-win' situatiation and it is all down to you, Softus.

Finally we've agreed on something then - I'm f***ing brilliant, me.

 

[joe-90]

No, Softus. You aren't awake yet are you? The stuff that was deleted was the stuff that I'm currently filling the thread with. YOU are my witness, Softus.

If the posts disappear then you will know that the mod is biased.

If the thread remains then the mod will have to admit (at least to themselves) that they are hypocrites as they deleted this content just yesterday.

Oh and BAS DID say that he was the son of an asylum seeker but that his father was quite young at the time and that it was probably his grandfather that actually made the claim.

So there ya go mate!

Thanx once again.


joe

MOD 2

i am not biased you all behave or i start END OF

 

[hermes]

MOD 2

i am not biased :

What, not at all.....ever....about anything?

 

[jbonding]

No, Softus. You aren't awake yet are you? The stuff that was deleted was the stuff that I'm currently filling the thread with. YOU are my witness, Softus.

If the posts disappear then you will know that the mod is biased.

If the thread remains then the mod will have to admit (at least to themselves) that they are hypocrites as they deleted this content just yesterday.

Oh and BAS DID say that he was the son of an asylum seeker but that his father was quite young at the time and that it was probably his grandfather that actually made the claim.
So there ya go mate!

Thanx once again.


joe

MOD 2

i am not biased you all behave or i start END OF

So what?

Moderator

This thread has now been locked - it has been hijacked and is no longer related to the original topic.